Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-6251(.~ra~ e~ al Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA f'"e17/I5 /~l~ ~OcJ~nS~~ NO. ~~ - ~,7.5~ C. ~ 1J1~ / ~,'/1~ Defendant Civil Term ~~~ ~~ ,- ~,~ 4~.~ ~~ y _t-y +~. . e~ ~ ` ~:~ ~ ~ t . .... . w . 1 `~'~ ~l i ~W ~-... ~~~ . ~C.. ~ .~I .....4f NOTICE TO DEFEND ~, <.~ '~~ ~' YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CLAIMS SET FORTH IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES, YOU MUST TAKE ACTION WITHIN 'TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER THIS COMPLAINT AND NOTICE ARE SERVED, BY ENTERING A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY AN ATTORNEY AND FILLING IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. YOU ARE WARNED THAT IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO THE CASE MAY PROCEED WITHOUT YOU AND A JUDGEMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU BY THE COURT WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE FOR ANY MONEY Ci.An~rFn IN THE COMPLAINT OR FOR ANY OTHER CLAIM OR RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF. YOU MAY LOSE MONEY OR PEOPERTY OR OTHER RIGHTS Il1dPORTANT TO YOU. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO THE TELEPHONE OR THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 1-800-990-9108 717-249-3166 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Margaret Graf DBA, Ritner Kennel Petitioner v. West Pennsboro Township, Respondent No. ~,2 -,6~5~ wig ~~.~-~ ACTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT I. Jurisdiction And Related Liti atg ion: 1. This court has jurisdiction under 42 Pa. C.S. §§ 7531 and 7532 regarding the scope of declaratory remedies. This action asks the court to resolve the following question: Do the conditions imposed in the December 15, 2003 Decision by the Board of Township Supervisors prevent Ms. Graf from operating her dog kennels at state licensed capacity? Decision is attached as Exhibit 1 and referred to for convenience as a "Conditional Use Permit. 2. In related cases (consolidated in Common Pleas Court), the Township has charged Ms. Graf with a violation of a municipal ordinance that prohibits dog barking for periods longer than 15 minutes or any barking that disturbs others. Docket No. CP-21-SA-80-2012. ~0 3.7S~al ~/~,~' eas ~ /~~ ae~6Go 3. As set forth in greater detail below, the exercise of declaratory jurisdiction will aid the parties in resolving anumber oflong-standing disputes regarding the proper scope of Conditional Use Permit. 4. There do not appear to be any issues of fact. There is no question that the Commonwealth has issued Ms. Graf a Boarding Kennel Class III license for an unlimited number of dogs per year as well as a Kennel Class II license for 51 - 100 dogs per year. There is no dispute that the Township believes that the use is restricted to 21 dogs. II. Parties: 5. West Pennsboro Township is a political subdivision within Cumberland County. 6. Margaret Graf is a natural person. She is a national level dog-sport competitor who owns and operates dog kennels where she imports and breeds working German Shepherds (currently in service as police patrol dogs, drug and bomb dogs, search and rescue dogs and service dogs; all throughout the mid-Atlantic region). Ms. Graf also has boarding kennels where she boards dogs when their families go on vacation, etc. Both Ms. Graf s home and her kennels are located at 3581 Ritner Highway, Newville, PA. III. Background Facts: 7. In early 2003, Margaret Graf and her parents looked for a small farm which they might purchase in order for Ms. Graf to pursue her life- long dream of owning and operating a dog kennel. 8. After discovering that a small farm at 3581 Ritner Highway was for sale, Ms. Graf and her parents inquired at West Pennsboro Township as to whether it would be permissible to build and operate a commercial kennel on the property. 9. On November 13, 2003, before buying the property, Ms. Graf and her parents submitted a "Conditional Use Application" to West Pennsboro Township. The Application is Attached as Exhibit 2. l0.The Application noted that Ms. Graf was a potential "purchaser" rather than an "owner". The Application also noted that the "reason(s) for the Applicant's request" was to "Operate a kennel at this residence". 11.Ms. Graf attached a map of the property and paid a $100.00 fee with check number 267. 12.Nothing in the Application suggested any size restriction with respect to the number of dogs to be kenneled. 13.On November 20, 2003, the Township Planning Commission met to consider the Application and unanimously approved it without any limitation on the number of dogs permitted. 14.On December 15, 2003, the Township Supervisors issued a Conditional Use Permit granting the Application without any limitation on the number of dogs permitted. 15.The Conditional Use Permit was subject to the following seven (7) conditions: • The two lots which. compose the property ... be combined through a deed of consolidation. • The minimum lot on which kennel activities can be conducted is 5 acres. • One sign shall be permitted ... . • The proposed parking area should identify an area for no fewer than 3 parking spaces. • No more than one (1) person ...shall be employed at the kennel without compliance with mandated parking. • All areas for animal exercise shall be securely fenced and located at least two hundred (200) feet from any property line. • All animals shall be kept within a completely enclosed building, which shall be no less than one hundred (100) feet from any property line. 16.In reliance on the terms of the Conditional Use Permit, Ms. Graf and her parents bought the property and constructed, at considerable expense, a dog kennel building approximately 60 feet long and 22 feet wide with power, heat and water. The building was specially designed and built to comfortably house dogs. 17.Because of the design of the building, the value of the property is closely tied to use as a dog kennel and it is not economically feasible to use this type of building for any other use. 18.Of importance from the Township's perspective is that the Conditional Use Permit also contains a section called "Procedural Background" which provides that "Applicant has filed a Conditional Use Application seeking ... [a]pproval for a commercial kennel with a capacity of 21 animals ...." This language is the crux of the dispute. The Township believes that there is a 21 dog limitation, while Ms. Graf does not believe that the Conditional Use Permit imposes a numerical limitation. See Exhibit 1. 19.Over the past three years, disputes have developed with the Township regarding conditions on the property. These disputes fall into three basic areas: 1) number of dogs, 2) barking noise and 3) housing and exercise arrangements for the dogs. 20.Because of their intelligence and activity level, the working type dogs spend most of the day outside in exercise pens. The Township has objected to this arrangement and believes that it violates the requirement in the use that the dogs be housed in a "completely enclosed" building. 21.In order to resolve this issue, Ms. Graf has proposed construction of a custom designed building that will combine housing and exercise opportunities and hopefully satisfy the Township's concern in this regard. This new building would be in addition to the kennel built when Ms. Graf and her parents purchased the property and will cost between fifty and one-hundred thousand dollars. Ms. Graf and her parents are in the process of finalizing a proposed design and securing bids for this work. They will be submitting a building plan to the Township for approval, so the housing arrangement issue should be one that the parties can work out on their own. 22.Over time, barking noise has also been an issue and the Township has enacted (over time) three separate barking ordinances and charged Ms. Graf with violating each one of the three. Most of the early charges were withdrawn or Ms. Graf pleaded guilty and received a small fine. However, the most recent ordinance is significantly broader in scope than earlier efforts and Ms. Graf has been charged with multiple violations on account of barking dogs. 23.The impossibility of operating a commercial kennel without some level of barking, and the breadth of the current barking ordinance, create conflict between Ms. Graf and the Township that is difficult to resolve. 24.The crux of the issue is whether Ms. Graf is in compliance with the Conditional Use Permit. Therefore, central to efforts to resolve this dispute by negotiated means is resolution of the alleged " 21 animal limit". 25.If the court were to hold that the Conditional Use Permit does not limit Ms. Graf to " 21 animals", the remainder of the dispute would be simple to settle because it would foreclose the Township's insistence that a review of the number of dogs (via a request to modify the conditional use filed with the Township) is a condition of resolving the barking issue. In fact, the Township has stated in in any application to modify the conditional use "you can expect the limitation of 21 dogs at the property to be an issue". Rather than give the Township a "second bite at the apple", Ms. Graf believes that the court can read the existing Conditional Use Permit and construe it as a matter of law. 26.In addition, a declaratory judgment would still assist the parties because it would narrow the issues with respect to the barking charges, i.e., whether Ms. Graf has exceeded an alleged to " 21 animals" limit or is otherwise out of compliance with her Conditional Use Permit. 27.Therefore, judicial resolution of the alleged "21 animal limit" will assist the parties by making Ms. Graf s rights clear with respect to the number of dogs she may lawfully kennel. 5 ----- --------.~ Date: October-372010 S/Christov er ~ r .Lucas, - PA ID No. 77903 Christopher S. Lucas & Associates 2917 Glenwood Rd. Camp Hill, PA 17011 717.737.4155 voice 717.737.4156 facsimile cslucas(a~ lucashealthlaw. com EXHIBIT 1 Board of Supervisors Wes# Pennsboro Township Cumberland County, Pennsylvania FILE NO. CU-2003-07 In Re: Application for Conditional Use by William & Margaret Graf (the "Applicant") Decision by the Board of Township Supervisors AND NOW, the 15th day of December, 2003 the Board of Supervisors of West Pennsboro Township renders the following decision: Authority: The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code ("MPC") authorizes municipalities to include conditional uses in its zoning ordinance (MPC Sec. 603(c) (2}, 53 P.S. Sec. 10603(c) (2). The West Pennsboro Township Board of Supervisors on July 19, 1993 enacted Ordinance 1993-02 known as the West Pennsboro .Township Zoning Ordinance ("Zoning Ordinance"). The Township has implemented the conditional ,use concept into its zoning ordinance via speck authorization in zoning. district regulations, e.g. Section 402 A regarding the Agricultural District, and by establishment of standards of review and procedures therefore in Section 1203 (Conditional Uaes in General) and 1205 (Home Occupation Regulations): Procedural Background: Applicant has filed a Conditional Use Application seeking Conditional Use Approval for a commercial kennel with a capacity of 21 animals on a 7.5 acre tract at the intersection of the Ritner Highway and Log Cabin Road. In accordance with Section 1203 (B) .(2) the application was forwarded to the West Pennsboro Township Planning Commission. The Planning Commission as its meeting of November 20, 2003 unanimously recommended approval, subject to the following conditions: _ 1. The two lots which compose the property on which the kennel is to be conducted must be combined through a deed of consolidation. 2. The minimum lot on which the kennel activities can be conducted is 5 acres. 3. One sign shall be permitted in accordance with Section 1401 of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The proposed parking area should identify an area for no fewer than 3 parking spaces. 5. No more than one (1) person other than the owner shall be employed at the kennei..~;~~ c~„r,pi~n,,c~ ~~.~.~ w~.~~n..~ ~`'~""9 ' 6. All areas for animal exercise shall be securely fenced and located at least two hundred (200) feet from any property line. 7. -All animals shall be kept within a completely enclosed building, which shall be no less than one hundred (100) feet from any property line. The Board provided public notice pursuant to the MPC and the West Pennsboro Township Zoning Ordinance and a hearing was held on December 15, 2003. The report of the Planning Commission was made part of the record. The Board considered the testimony and rendered a decision on December 15, 2003. This is the formal decision. Jurisdictional Facts and Conclusion: The Board finds as follows: . 1. Applicant . is the owner of the subject tract and is thereby authorized to request- the conditional use requested. The subject tract is in the Agricultural (A) Zoning District on the Official Zoning Map of West Pennsboro Township. 2. Section 403 of the. Zoning Ordinance permits "Commercial Kennels in accordance with the regulations in Article 12 of the Zoning Ordinance" as a conditional use. 3. The Applicant has filed the appropriate application for a Conditional Use and paid the required fee. _ 4. The Board of Supervisors of West Pennsboro Township is the proper body to hear and decide applications for conditional uses according to Section 1203 of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore the Board concludes that it has jurisdiction of the Application. Sufficiency of Application and Hearing; The Board finds that Applicant has supplied the appropriate application and paid the proper fee. The Board also finds that proper notice was given pursuant to the MPC and in accordance with Section 202 of the Ordinance. No objections were made to either the notice or hearing procedure. Findings of Fact: The Board finds as relevant facts: ~1. The proposed use will. comply with all conditions set forth generally in Section 1211 of the zoning ordinance. 2. The Application conforms to the. requirements of Section 1203 of the zoning ordinance. The Board finds that: a. The proper procedures were used pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance. b. The proposed uses will not adversely affect the public health, safety,. welfare, comfort and convenience of the public in general and the residents in the neighborhood in particular. Nor will they adversely impact existing landscapes or viewshed. c. The overall traffic generated will be minimal. Conclusion and Final Decision: Based upon the record of these proceedings and the foregoing findings and conclusion, the Board approves the conditional use as requested, subject to the above mentioned conditions recommended by the West Pennsboro Township Planning Commission, which conditions the Board of Supervisors concludes are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the Township, and subject to such further conditions as may be established by PA Dot for the construction of the driveway entrance to the proposed use. This decision shall be binding upon Applicants, their heirs, executors and assigns. The Township Engineer and/or Zoning Officer shall have. special authority to enforce the provisions of this decision. A true copy of this decision shall be delivered to the Applicants personally or mailed by certified mail (return receipt requested). Approved unanimously this 15th day of December, 2003 by the Board of Supervisors of West Permsboro Township. Attest: f Secretary West Pennsboro Township Board of S pervisors By: Chairman EXHIBIT 2 WEST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION Date: ; / ! 3 03 File No. ~ .~70~3 - 07 TO: West Pennsboro Township Planning Commission 2150 Newville Road, Carlisle, PA 17013-7746 /~ _ ,3~ j ~~~, ~GV tact; ~~) 1. Name and address of Applicant: ~°`~`` ~''" ~ • ~~°14~ ~~~~~ ~ ~-~ ~~' l ~'d ~3 C tia ~ ~ ~ ~'fa sv, t to ~,7 z.z~ ~ I 2_ Applicant's Attorney (if applicable): 3. Applicant is the (OWNER) (TENANT) (PU~R) (OTHER) of subject property. 4. If Applicant is not the owner, furnish name and address below: ~~i l ~c`E-rtler ~I"' 5. The subject properly is described, located and used as set forth on the plan attached hereto: 6. The Conditional Use sought by the Applicant, citing present zoning classification of property and section of Zoning Ordinance under which request is presented: -fi'c% /Z~S~C~-h'~~n 1LI 7. The reason(s),for Applicant's reque1st of above is as 8. The following a~~re~~ ad,~~ining property owners and respective addresses: C! xz~%CLGe7.E c2~ 9. Fed $1QQ,94~- 10. Signature of Applicant: ~~~ G.[1.~ ~ J ~~ dill .$I ' ". _. U ,,..Y; ~ / ~ .~ 1 ~- I ~A~ o ~iaM 1 I ~,\ \ ~o~03SOd0 . 1 I\, 0360dObd ~(1 y ~ ~ I 1 ' bnH\~ (', , 3BnOH ~ ~ W 03SOd02ld I ~ ---i ~ I .. ' .. _ --_ y III ~ , ( ' ~36gOH . r. -~ __ ~rM3nIb0 , ' ~ ~~ Cn -'~~ - - _ ,-- ~~ ~ Z7 ~ ` ..... _ , ~ x_... ~'~Iid7S 3SnoH _.. ... r., 9~~ Il - ,, ~ ~~ ~ ' '~ ~ I \ 1 \ . ~ ~3 \ e~H ' , ~' i '• J ~ ~ ?~ ~ ~ r ~57 ~~~ ~ F ., '~' ~ o l~' ~ ~ -- 1 ~~ ~u ~ \ , / QJ O U G ~ `.. ~~ 9'd TLbtr-6SZ[LIG] ua~uadS ~ ua~uadS dSZ='b0 EO LZ ~~C F.',FILES1C1ien[s\ 135 J9 West Penny 13599.4\ 13599 A.prae4.recodwpd - ~, ?' _ '~ `, ;~, ` stn ,. , . Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire I.D. 29943 `sl',`'~ ~ivr; ~ ~.,' ~.,; ~ ~#, R. Christopher VanLandingham, Esquire ~ ~ h ~ ~~ S y - ~e~, ~~ ~ ; ~: I.D. 307424 MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER MARTSON LAW OFFICES 10 East High Street Carlisle, 1?A 17013 (717)243-3341 Attorneys for Respondent MARGARET GRAF DBA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF RITNER KENNEL, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Petitioner v. DOCKET NO. 2012-6251 WEST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP, Respondent CIVIL TERM PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please make the Affidavit of Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire, with exhibit, dated November 28, 2012, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A," part of the record in the above-captioned case. MARTSON LAW OFFICES ` ~ ~ ~,% ~- ~ By: --- Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire Attorney ID #29943 R. Christopher VanLandingham, Esquire Attorney ID # 307424 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorneys for Respondent Date: ;'~~~~~~~/ l- F1FIL8S.Clients` 13599 West PennA 13599.4\ I3599.4.affidavithxg.wpd Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire LD. 29943 R. Christopher VanLandingham, Esquire I.D. 307424 MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER MARTSON LAW OFFICES 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Respondent MARGARET GRAF DBA RITNER KENNEL, Petitioner v. WEST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP, Respondent IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO. 2012-6251 CIVIL TERM COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND SS. AFFIDAVIT OF HUBERT X. GILROY, ESQUIRE I, Hubert X. Gilroy Esquire, being duly sworn according to law, depose and state: 1. I am Special Solicitor to Respondent West Pennsboro Township and make the below statements on the basis of my personal knowledge. 2. On or about October l 7, 2012, Respondent West Pennsboro Township, sent an Enforcement Notice to Petitioner. 3. A true and correct copy of that Enforcement Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit ~.A ,. Sworn to and subscribed before me this _ day of November, 2012 ~ ~~. ota f blic ~/ Hubert X. Milroy, Esquire ~: ©~iiv9~lw~l~r~G ~~r n~ ~ NN~YLVANIA f--~._._ -~_. .~E iY t3 sai•. h Yy f~'s~4~iC I ~lCOirtr s 's ! Memf '~' " °.irg ~, 2013 gar. ~~ni~ s.v ~„a: r .,....;~t:ol~ of ~~la.ies WEST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP 2150 Newville Road, Carlisle, PA 17015-7746 Phone: (717) 243-8220 Fax: (717) 243-1592 October 17, 2012 VIA FIRST CLASS MAII. & CERTIFIED MAIL #5390 3828 Ms. Margaret L. Graf 3581 Ritner Highway Newville, PA 17241 Dear Ms. Graf: Please be advised that this letter is being sent to you in accordance with Sections 700.2 and 700.3 of the West Pennsboro Township Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance") in the nature of a notice of violation of the Ordinance with respect to your ownership and use of the real estate at 3581 Ritner Highway Newville, Pennsylvania (the "Property"). The Board of Supervisors of West Pennsboro Township issued a Conditional Use Permit to you in accordance with the December 15, 2003, Decision by the Supervisors. A copy of that Decision is enclosed for your easy reference.. You are currently in violation of the restrictions from the Decision for the following reasons: A. You are maintaining more than 21 dogs at the Kennel. B. The dogs associated with the Kennel have not been kept in a completely enclosed building. C. Areas of animal exercise have been conducted within 200 feet of the Property line. D. The three required parking spaces are not identified on the Property. Additionally, your use at the Property is in violation of other Sections of the Ordinance as follows: 1. The Conditional Use Decision referenced above required that 5 acres be dedicated to the Kennel operation. Your Property consists of 7.33 acres. After use as a Kennel operation, you have 2.33 acres for the keeping of animals. Information the Township has obtained is that you have at least four horses, eight sheep, and an unknown number of chickens at the Property. Keeping of these animals is in violation of the Ordinance at Section 200.2(1). The Ordinance at Section 700.2(2) suggests that the parties may need to discuss these issues in an attempt to resolve the alleged violation. If you desire to have such a meeting, please contact the Township's Special Solicitor, Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013, (717) 243- 3341. If no action is taken on your beha!# within thirty days from the date of this notice, the Township may proceed to institute appropriate legal proceedings against you. You have the right to appeal this enforcement notice to the West Pennsboro Township Zoning Hearing Board. If you file such an appeal, further enforcement proceedings wilt not be instituted pending resolution of that appeal. In the alternative to filing an appeal to this this enforcement notice, you have the right to file a supplementary Conditional Use Application with the Board of Supervisors relative to any desire on your part to modify or expand the Conditional Use Decision. Additionally, you have the ability to file a variance request with the West Pennsboro Township Zoning Hearing Board if you seek relief from Section 200.2 of the Ordinance as it relates to the keeping of non-commercial animals. If you file such a Conditional Use Application with the Supervisors and/or a variance request with the Zoning Hearing Board, further enforcement proceedings against you will be stayed pending resolution of the filings with the Township. Attorney Chris Lucas has represented you previously in other matters relating to the Township, so we are copying Attorney Lucas with this letter. However, consistent with the Ordinance, we are required to send the letter directly to you rather than going through your attorney. As indicated above, if you have any questions, your attorney may contact Mr. Gilroy. Very truly yours, WE5T PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP By.~~ ` C. John M. Epley Township Manager Code Enforcement Oft•icer Cc: Christopher S. Lucas, Esquire Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire Paul L. Zeigler, Esquire CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Shelly R. Taylor, an authorized agent for Martson Law Offices, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Praecipe was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Christopher S. Lucas, Esquire 2917 Glenwood Road Camp Hill, PA 17011. MARTSON LAW OFFICES By Shelly R. Taylor Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 C � 3 xcu =c rn F:\FILES\Clients\13599 West Penn\13599.4\13599.4.Ms.Declantory Judgment.wpd {T.1 Ln> n C) I �� Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire r--� .�_. , I.D. 29943 R. Christopher V anLandingham, Esquire I.D. 307424 MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY&FALLER ". MARTSON LAW OFFICES 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Respondent MARGARET GRAF DBA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF RITNER KENNEL, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Petitioner V. DOCKET NO. 2012-6251 WEST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP, Respondent CIVIL TERM NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: MARGARET GRAF DBA RITNER KENNEL, Plaintiff, and her attorney, CHRISTOPHER S. LUCAS YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY(20)DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. MARTSON LAW OFFICES By. ubert Gilroy, Esquire I.D.N4 29943 R. Christopher VanLandingham, Esquire I.D. No. 307424 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Respondent Date: 13 Page 1 of 7 F:\FII.ES\Clients\13599 West Penn\13599.4\13599.4.Ans.Dmlaratory Judgment.wpd Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire I.D. 29943 R. Christopher VanLandingham, Esquire I.D. 307424 MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY &FALLER MARTSON LAW OFFICES 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Respondent MARGARET GRAF DBA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF RITNER KENNEL, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Petitioner V. DOCKET NO. 2012-6251 WEST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP, Respondent CIVIL TERM RESPONSE WITH NEW MATTER TO PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND NOW comes Defendant, WEST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP, by and through her attorneys, MARTSON LAW OFFICES, and hereby responds to Plaintiff's Complaint as follows: West Pennsboro Township, by its Special Solicitor, Martson law Offices, sets forth the following in response to the Action for Declaratory Judgment filed in the above matter. I. JURISDICTION AND RELATED LITIGATION: 1. Denied. This paragraph contains averments of law to which no response is required to the extent the response is deemed required said averments are denied. 2. It is admitted that Petitioner has received citations for violations of the West Pennsboro Township Dog Barking Ordinance. 3. The averments of this paragraph are an opinion and not averments of fact and therefore do not require a response. To the extent that a response is deemed required said averments are denied. 4. Denied. It is denied that there are no issues of fact as the entire purpose of this Declaratory Judgment Action is to determine whether or not the Conditional Use Permit limits the Page 2 of 7 number of animals to 21. It is denied that the Commonwealth has issued Ms. Graf a Boarding Kennel Class III license for an unlimited number of dogs per year as well as a Kennel Class II license for 51-100 dogs per year as the license speaks for itself. It is denied as stated that the Conditional Use Permit limits the number of"dogs" to 21. By way of further response, the Conditional Use Permit limits the total number of animals to 21. II. PARTIES: 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Margaret Graf is a natural person. It is further admitted that she operates a dog kennel located at 3581 Ritner Highway in Newville,Pennsylvania. The remaining averments of this paragraph are denied as upon reasonable investigation respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief and therefore denies. III. BACKGROUND FACTS: 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief and therefore denies. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form an belief and therefore denies. 9. It is admitted that Petitioner filed a Conditional Use Application with West Pennsboro Township. 10. Denied as the document speaks for itself. 11. Admitted. 12. Denied as the document speaks for itself. 13. Denied as stated. By way of further response, it is admitted that the Township Planning Commission met on November 20, 2003, and recommended that the Township Board of Supervisors grant the Conditional Use Permit. It is further admitted that the Township Board of Supervisors subsequently granted the Conditional Use Permit. It is specifically denied that there was no limitation on the number of dogs permitted. To the contrary the number of animals permitted was limited to 21. 14. Denied as the document speaks for itself. By way of further response,the Decision of the Board of Supervisors, attached to the Petition as Exhibit "1" specifically states that the Conditional Use is for"a commercial kennel with a capacity of 21 animals on a 7.5 acre tract at the Page 3 of 7 intersection of the Ritner Highway and Log Cabin Road." 15. Denied as the document speaks for itself. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief and therefore denies. 17. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are an opinion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required said averments are denied. 18. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Respondent believes there is a limitation of 21 animals and that the Conditional Use Permit contains a section entitled"Procedural Background"which provides in part that"Applicant has filed a Conditional Use Application seeking [a]pproval for a commercial kennel with a capacity of 21 animals...". The remaining averments of this paragraph are denied as opinions of Petitioner to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required said averments are denied. 19. Denied as stated. By way of further response, it is admitted that Petitioner disputes that she is in violation of the Conditional Use Permit. It is further admitted that Petitioner has been cited for violations of the Township Dog Barking Ordinance. 20. Denied. After reasonable investigation respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief and therefore denies. By way of further response,it is admitted that respondant believes Petitioner has violated the Conditional Use Permit. 21. Denied. After reasonable investigation respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief and therefore denies. 22. Admitted in part and Denied in part. It is admitted that Respondent has, over time, enacted three separate Dog Barking Ordinances. It is further admitted that Ms. Graf has been cited for violation of said ordinances. The remaining averments of this paragraph are Petitioners opinion and therefore no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required said averments are denied. 23. The averments of this paragraph are Petitioner's opinion and therefore no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required said averments are denied. 24. The averments of this paragraph are Petitioner's opinion and therefore no response Page 4 of 7 is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required said averments are denied. 25. The averments of this paragraph are Petitioner's opinion and therefore no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required said averments are denied. 26. The averments of this paragraph are Petitioner's opinion and therefore no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required said averments are denied. 27. The averments of this paragraph are Petitioner's opinion and therefore no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required said averments are denied. WHEREFORE,Respondent requests this Court deny the Petition for Declaratory Judgment. NEW MATTER 28. The averments set forth in paragraph's 1 through 27 above are incorporated herein by reference thereto. 29. Petitioner purchased the subject property in a location zoned Agricultural pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance of West Pennsboro Township ("Ordinance"). 30. Operation of a commercial kennel at the subject property would not be allowed under the Township Zoning Ordinance without a Conditional Use Permit. 31. On or about November 13, 2003, Petitioner filed a Conditional Use Application ("Application") in order to operate a commercial kennel on the subject property. 32. On November 20, 2003,the Township Planning Commission held a public meeting to consider the Application, at which time Petitioner requested Conditional Use Approval for a commercial kennel with a capacity of 21 animals on a 7.5 acre tract at the intersection of the Ritner Highway and Log Cabin Road. 33. The Township Planning Commission recommended that the Board of Supervisors approve the Conditional Use of a commercial kennel with a capacity of 21 animals on a 7.5 acre tract. 34. On December 15, 2003, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing and unanimously agreed to issue a Conditional Use Permit to Petitioner for a commercial kennel with a capacity of 21 animals on a 7.5 acre tract at the intersection of the Ritner Highway and Log Cabin Road subject to certain conditions as outlined in the Board of Supervisors'Decision dated December 15, 2003, and attached as Exhibit"1"to the Petition("Decision"). 35. Subsequent to the Decision,Petitioner began operation of a commercial kennel at the Page 5 of 7 subject property. 36. Petitioner has kept and, upon information and belief, continues to keep, more than 21 animals at the subject property. 37. The keeping of more than 21 animals at the subject property violates the Conditional Use Permit. 38. In order to keep more than 21 animals on the subject property Petitioner must apply for a modified Conditional Use Permit. 39. West Pennsboro Township issued an Enforcement Notice to the Petitioner on or about October 17, 2012, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked Exhibit"A". Petitioner has not responded to the Enforcement Notice nor taken any action with respect to filing a revised Conditional Use Application with the Township. 40. The Petitioner possesses remedies other than this Declaratory Judgment Action to resolve the dispute in this matter. Specifically, Petitioner has remedies available under the Municipalities Planning Code 53 P.S. §10101 et seq. WHEREFORE,Respondent requests this Court deny the Petition for Declaratory Judgment. Respectfully submitted, MARTSON L OFFICES By: Hubert X. Gilro squire Attorney ID #2 943 R. Christopher VanLandingham, Esquire Attorney ID # 307424 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: March , 2013 Attorneys for Respondent Page 6 of 7 EXHIBIT "A" Page 7 of 8 WEST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP 2150 Newville Road,Carlisle,PA 17015-7746 • Phone: (717)243-8220 Fax: (717)243-1592 October 17,2012 VIA FIIt3T CLASS MA L&CERTIFI R MAIL#531A 3828 Ms.Margaret L.Graf 3581 Ritner Highway Newville, PA 17141 Dear Ms.Graf: Please be advised that this letter is being sent to you in accordance with Sections 700.2 and 700.3 of the West Pennsboro Township Zoning Ordinance(the"Ordinance")in the nature of a notice of violation of the Ordinance with respect to your ownership and use of the real estate at 3581 Ritner Highway Newville, Ptnnsyivania(the"Property"). The Board of Supervisors of West Pennsboro Township issued a Conditional Use Permit to you in accordance with the December 15, 1003, Decision by the Supervisors. A copy of that Decision is enclosed for your easy reference. You are currently in violation of the restrictions from the Decision for the following reasons: A. You are maintaining more than 21 dogs at the Kennel. B. The dogs associated with the Kennel have not been kept in a completely enclosed building. C. Areas of animal exercise have been conducted within 200 feet of the Property line. D. The three required parking spaces are not identified on the Property. Additionally,your use at the Property is in violation of other Sections of the Ordinance as follows: 1. The Conditional Use Decision referenced above required that 5 acres be dedicated to the Kennel operation. Your Property consists of 7.33 acres. After use as a Kennel operation, you have 2.33 acres for the keeping of animals. Information the Township has obtained is that you have at least four horses, eight sheep, and an unknown number of chickens at the Property. Keeping of these animals is in violation of the Ordinance at Section 200.2(i). The Ordinance at Section 700.2(2)suggests that the parties may need to discuss these issues in an attempt to resolve the alleged violation. If you desire to have such a meeting, please contact the Township's Special Solicitor, Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013, (717) 243- 3341. If no action Is taken on your behalf within thirty days from the date of this notice,the Township may proceed to Institute appropriate legal proceedings against you. You have the right to appeal this enforcement notice to the West Pennsboro Township Zoning Hearing Board. If you file such an appeal, further enforcement proceedings will not be instituted pending resolution of that appeal. In the alternative to filing an appeal to this this enforcement notice,you have the right to file a supplementary Conditional Use Application with the Board of Supervisors relative to any desire on your part to modify or expand the Conditional Use Decision. Additionally, you have the ability to file a variance request with the West Pennsboro Township Zoning Hearing Board If you seek relief from Section 200.2 of the Ordinance as It relates to the keeping of non-commercial animals. If you file such a Conditional Use Application with the Supervisors and/or a variance request with the Zoning Hearing Board,further enforcement proceedings against you will be stayed pending resolution of the filings with the Township. Attorney Chris Lucas has represented you previously in other matters relating to the Township, so we are copying Attorney Lucas with this letter. However, consistent with the Ordinance, we are required to send the letter directly to you rather than going through your attorney. As indicated above,If you have any questions,your attorney may contact Mr.Gilroy. Very truly yours, WEST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP By. ` AIL John M.Epley Township Manager Code Enforcement Officer Cc: Christopher S.Lucas,Esquire Hubert X.Gilroy,Esquire Paul L.Zeigler,Esquire CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Shelly R. Taylor, an authorized agent for Martson Law Offices,hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Response was served this date via email and by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Christopher S. Lucas, Esquire 2917 Glenwood Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 MARTSON LAW OFFICES B elly . Taylor Ten E High Str ' Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Page 8 of 8 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Margaret Graf DBA, Ritner Kennel Petitioner No. 2012-6251 V. : West Pennsboro Township, Respondent -U 3 rn w � —J M r- r rQ :;Dc) CD <co CD PETITIONER'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO y' RESPONDENT'S NEW MATTER I. Procedural Backjzround Petitioner filed a Declaratory Judgment action on October 5, 2012 seeking solely declaratory relief with respect to two issues of law, to wit: 1. Do the conditions imposed in the Conditional Use Permit prevent Ms. Graf from operating her kennel at its state licensed capacity? 2. Do the conditions imposed in the Conditional Use Permit prevent Ms. Graf from allowing dogs outside exercise time as required of licensed kennels by state law? Ms. Graf s application as well as the Township's Conditional Use Permit were attached to the Declaratory Judgment Complaint. The Complaint raises pure issues of law that can be adjudicated solely with reference to the language of the controlling document, i.e., the Township's Conditional Use permit. After the filing of the Declaratory Judgment action, the Township issued a notice under the Township Zoning Ordinance warning Petitioner that she was in violation of the ordinance for, inter alia, having more than 21 dogs and allowing them to exercise outside of a "completely enclosed" building. The Township then filed Preliminary Objections and argued that the Township's letter deprives the court of equity jurisdiction to hear the previously filed declaratory judgment action because Petitioner is (now) required to follow the appeal procedures outlined in the letter. The Court rejected the Township's maneuver and overruled its Preliminary Objections. The Township then filed an Answer and New Matter. The Township's New matter again attaches the Township's warning letter that was the subject of the Township's earlier Preliminary Objection and, again, raises the same argument, i.e., failure to exhaust administrative and/or statutory remedies by following the procedures outlined in the warning letter. 2 First, the letter was issued after the complaint was filed. Respondents should not be able to deprive the courts of jurisdiction by taking actions after the filing of the complaint. II. First Preliminary Objection To New Matter Q¶ 38-40 Petitioner objects to the Township's attempt to re-litigate the exhaustion of administrative/statutory remedies argument. This objection rests on two legal bases. First, the law of the case doctrine prohibits the Township from attempting to re-litigate this issue because the same issue was raised in the Township's Preliminary Objections and the court consider those objections and over-ruled them. Second, Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(7) and (8) require that exhaustion be raised as a Preliminary Objection. Petitioner's attempt to raise this issue as "New Matter" is therefore inconsistent with the Rule. This reasoning is bolstered by Pa. R.C.P. 1028(b) which requires that all preliminary objections be raised at one time. Because the Township has already raised preliminary objections, it should be barred from re-litigating the exhaustion argument that the court has already considered and rejected. 3 III. Second Preliminary Objection To New Matter%28-36 Pa. R.C.P. governs "New Matter". The Rule permits two bases upon which new matter may be pleaded: 1) affirmative defenses and 2) "material facts which are not merely denials of the averments in the preceding pleading." The Township's New Matter does not plead an affirmative defense and therefore, Petitioner's Preliminary Objection to the New Matter should be sustained unless the New Matter pleads "material facts which are not merely denials of the averments in the preceding pleading." However, each of the pleaded paragraphs is either: 1) not material, or 2) a mere denial of averments in the Declaratory Judgment Complaint. Each paragraph is analyzed below. 128. Re: agricultural zoning_ Zoning is not material the court's construction of the Conditional Use Permit. Either the language of the Conditional Use Permit imposes that conditions that the Township urges or it does not. No claim or defense with respect to the zoning ordinance and therefore, this paragraph is not material. ¶29. Re: agricultural zoning_ Zoning is not material the court's construction of the Conditional Use Permit. Either the language of the Conditional Use 4 Permit imposes that conditions that the Township urges or it does not. No claim or defense with respect to the zoning ordinance and therefore, this paragraph is not material. 130. Re: agricultural zonings Zoning is not material the court's construction of the Conditional Use Permit. Either the language of the Conditional Use Permit imposes that conditions that the Township urges or it does not. No claim or defense with respect to the zoning ordinance and therefore, this paragraph is not material. ¶31. Re: Conditional Use Application: Paragraph 31 is merely a recitation of the averments in the Declaratory Judgment Complaint and therefore not "material" under Pa. R.C.P. 1030. 132. Re: Planning Commission Meetin&. Planning Commissions are merely advisory and, in any event, what the Planning Commission did or failed to do is not relevant. In any case, the averment false and an exhaustive attempt by both parties to verify the truth of this averment (which the Township stubbornly maintains) has failed. The fact is that the application (which is attached to the Declaratory Judgment Complaint) does not seek approval for a "21 dog" kennel, but is, rather, completely open ended. This open ended application was approved for a Conditional Use Permit which, likewise, is completely open-ended. There is absolutely no 5 merit or truth to the Township's position on this. In the end, this averment and those that follow it, are not material because the Conditional Use Permit controls. ¶33. Re: Planning Commission Approval: Planning Commissions are merely advisory and, in any event, what the Planning Commission did or failed to do is not relevant. In any case, the averment false and an exhaustive attempt by both parties to verify the truth of this averment (which the Township stubbornly maintains) has failed. The fact is that the application (which is attached to the Declaratory Judgment Complaint) does not seek approval for a "21 dog" kennel, but is, rather, completely open ended. This open ended application was approved for a Conditional Use Permit which, likewise, is completely open-ended. There is absolutely no merit or truth to the Township's position on this. In the end, this averment and those that follow it, are not material because the Conditional Use Permit controls. 134. Re: Board of Supervisor Ap rp oval: The "intent" of the Board of Supervisor's is not relevant. Here also, the averment false and an exhaustive attempt by both parties to verify the truth of this averment (which the Township stubbornly maintains) has failed. The language of the Conditional 6 Use Permit issued by the Supervisors controls and it obviously contains no such limitation. 135. Re: Operation of State Licensed Kennel: The fact that Petitioner operates a state licensed kennel as has already been pleaded in¶ 3 of the Declaratory Judgment Complaint: There do not appear to be any issues of fact. There is no question that the kennel has been a Boarding Kennel Class III license for an unlimited number of dogs per year as well as a Kennel Class II license for 51 — 100 dogs per year. There is no dispute that the Township has sought to restrict use to 21 dogs at any one time. The legal issue in this case is the construction of the Conditional Use Permit. Paragraph 34, whether true or false, has no bearing on that construction. It is therefore, not material. 136. Re: Operation of State Licensed Kennel: The fact that Petitioner operates a state licensed kennel as has already been pleaded in¶ 3 of the Declaratory Judgment Complaint. The legal issue in this case is the construction of the Conditional Use Permit. Paragraph 36, whether true or false, has no bearing on that construction. It is therefore, not material. 137. Re: Conditional Use Permit Construction: Paragraph 37 is merely a denial of the averments in the Declaratory Judgment Complaint and therefore not permitted "New Matter" under Pa. R.C.P. 1030. IV. Conclusion 7 There are not issues of fact presented by this case. The court can and should resolve this dispute by merely construing the Conditional Use Permit which obviously controls. The Conditional Use Permit does not contain any limitation on the number of dogs maintained at the kennel. Furthermore, the application for the Conditional Use Permit did not contain any limitation on the number of dogs. The state has issued a Class III license permitting 51- 100 dogs. The Township's attempt to plead additional facts should be rejected and Petitioner's preliminary objections should be sustained because nothing pleaded by the Township has any bearing on the language of the Conditional Use Permit. 8 Date: March 22, 2012 S STOP Christopher S. Lucas, 're PA ID No. 77903 Christopher S. Lucas & Associates 2917 Glenwood Rd. Camp Hill, PA 17011 717.691.0203 voice 717.691.3130 facsimile cslucasna,lucashealthlaw.com 9 Margaret Graf DBA, Ritner Kennel Petitioner No. 2012-6251 V. West Pennsboro Township, Respondent : CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, CHRISTOPHER S. LUCAS, CERTIFY THAT OPPOSING COUNSEL BY HAND DELIVER: C/o HUBERT X. GILROY MARTSON LAw OFFICES 10 EAST HIGH ST. CARLISL , 17013 Date: March 22, 2012 Christo he s Chris squire PA ID No. 77903 Christopher S. Lucas & Associates 2917 Glenwood Rd. Camp Hill, PA 17011 717.691.0203 voice 717.691.3130 facsimile cslucasna lucashealthlaw.com 10 1 -6799 CA`A L http://www.ccpa.net/DocumentCenterNiew/6799 PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGIMAENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in triplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: (List the within matter for#&net; tom- Argument Court) w --f CAPTION OF CASE r*t r (entire caption must be stated in fait) ' ry rr -<r rv . VS. W��I r 1�b^'M�S13 0�0 I OI.aNs 1�'� -•:� ,�° ' No, 2 012 2 S 1 Term 1. State matter to be argued(i.e.,piaintift's motion for new trial,defendant's demurrer to complaint,etc.): -Pt-`r Xo03EA•S 1.>6 s TD jt 3,&N'D6WT-� N 6-V3 M.A fM-'Q_, 2. Identify all counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiffs: C H-ac5 aPttea 1.y l,,AS 29 t"i G t t NW 1tzx.�- f-0 C', A-P tai t (�q 1'7b I (Nam and Address) Hv6c-i- 4V-L-(LO y 10 t- sr 1 4 51- (',&At,PS t t. PA (b) for defendants: (Name and Address) 3. 1 will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument 4. Argument Court Date: A q lb Z o 13 Signature Print your name -PST-T-�-YL. Attorney for Date: 3122 �13 INSTRUCTIONS: 1.Original and two copies of all briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR(not the Prothonotary)before argument. 2.The moving party shall file and serve their brief 14 days prior to argument. �IQ.75 PA A" 3.The responding party shall Me their brief 7 days prior to argument rew 4.N argument is continued new briefs must be filed with the COURT #186155 ADMINISTRATOR(not the Prothonotary)after the case is rellsted. 1 of 1 3/22/2013 7:31 AM MARGARET GRAF d/b/a RITNER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF KENNEL, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PETITIONER V. WEST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP, RESPONDENT 12-6251 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS BEFORE EBERT, J., MASLAND, J. AND PECK, J. �jORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this V day of May, 2013, following argument on Petitioner's Preliminary Objections to Respondent's New Matter, the Preliminary Objections are OVERRULED and Petitioner is DIRECTED to file an answer to the New Matter within twenty (20) days of this order. By the Court, Albert . Masland, J. '-�Christopher S. Lucas, Esquire For Petitioner ✓Katie Maxwell, Esquire For Respondent c= :sal -r, w f G Q IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Margaret Graf DBA, Ritner Kennel Petitioner V. No. 2012-6251 West Pennsboro Township, Respondent PETITIONER'S ANSWER TO RESPONDENT'S NEW MATTER 28. ADMITTED. 29. ADMITTED. _ f 30. ADMITTED. 31. ADMITTED. 32. ADMITTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. It is DENIED that the request contained any limitation as to the number of dogs. The remainder is ADMITTED. 33. ADMITTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. It is DENIED that the recommended approval contained any limitation as to the number of dogs. The remainder is ADMITTED. 34. ADMITTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. It is DENIED that the Conditional Use Permit contained any limitation as to the number of dogs. The remainder is ADMITTED. 35. ADMITTED. 36. ADMITTED. 37. DENIED. It is specifically denied that the Conditional Use Permit contained any limitation as to the number of dogs. 38. DENIED as a conclusion of law. 39. ADMITTED. 40. DENIED as a conclusion of law. Date: May 15, 2013 S/Christo her Christopher S. Lucas, Esquire PA ID No. 77903 Christopher S. Lucas & Associates 2917 Glenwood Rd. Camp Hill, PA 17011 717.691.0203 voice 717.691.3130 facsimile cslucas(a,lucashealthlaw.com 2 y Margaret Graf DBA, Ritner Kennel Petitioner No. 2012-6251 V. ; West Pennsboro Township, Respondent VERIFICATION I Margaret Graf verify that the statements contained in this answer are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I make this verification subject to the penalties for perjury set forth at 18 Pa. C.S. §4904. Date: May 16, 2013 a gar Graf 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, CHRISTOPHER S. LUCAS, CERTIFY THAT OPPOSING COUNSEL BY HAND DELIVERY: C/O HUBERT X. GILROY MARTSON LAW OFFICES 10 EAST H T. CARLIS ,PA 17 13 Date: May 15, 2013 S/Christo her Chns op er S. Luc , PA ID No. 77903 Christopher S. Lucas & Associates 2917 Glenwood Rd. Camp Hill, PA 17011 717.691.0203 voice 717.691.3130 facsimile cslucas(a,lucashealthlaw com 4